Joseph E. Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001 and the John Bates Clark Medal in 1979, is University Professor at Columbia University, Co-Chair of the High-Level Expert Group on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress at the OECD, and Chief… read more

Comments

Job decline as a result of advancement of technology is fact. computer with internet makes certain service (postal) and other materials (ink pens and papers) usage less less minimal.

I can not remember when last I visited the post office in Monrovia. I had lost tracked of my post box number over 10 years ago.

I can do work and share it with my boss and colleagues on the server of the Research, Policy and Planning Department of the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL). When we produced the Bank's quarterly financial and economic bulletin, editing and correction are done with on the server, and then later transmitted to the MIS via e-mail for publication on the website of the CBL; without one paper trail.

Back to the main topic. I listened on BBC World Service FM relay radio, or watched most often CNN on my DSTV during the US presidential campaign and debates. When ever President elect Donald J. Trump made the statement " I will make America great again" in his campaigning or debates, I almost shouted how? And I can not remember any US journalists questioning Mr. Trump how he will make America great again.

Because to me making America great again is not about money. Despite technology advancement, labor is still the thread that runs through the fabric of manufacturing. And cheap labor is preferred over much expensive one for doing the same job of manufacturing.

The jobs that moved away from the US economy and settled in Mexico economy or China economy were mostly in manufacturing; (if this my statement is not correct; I hope some one react to it). The movement was in search of comparative disadvantage or advantage of labor; facilitated by globalization.

Can Mr. Trump change the course of globalization in his tenure?Read more

Prof. Stiglitz, what would economists say about a graduated corporation tax levied on gross income rather than profits? As I understand it, there are many accounting maneuvers to reduce 'profits', but gross income is less open to manipulation. The point would be to directly inhibit consolidation through a business incentive- lower taxes for smaller companies. This, combined with a tiny tax on all transactions, would shift the tax burden to those more able to bear it. Read more

"If Trump is serious about tackling inequality . . . “"If Trump actually wants to help those who have been left behind, . . . ““ . . . the new rules will make the situation worse, excluding even more people from the American dream . . . “

So, the options are that Trump doesn’t mean what he says, or that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about - or most likely, both. Read more

Samuel Gompers, at the turn of the last century, argued that the answer to labor-saving technologies is a commensurate reduction in the hours of labor. Why isn't that the right approach today? New statutory restrictions on the hours of labor would be an "artificial" way to decrease the supply of labor to offset the decline in the demand, which is a logical way to insure that labor would share in the gains of technological progress.

So how about Stiglitz proposes a family-friendly six-hour day with triple pay for overtime (triple to show we mean business)? At least explore the option. Read more

Stiglitz should specify that his initial investment is government investment as a stimulus. It is an unrealistic expectation for investment from the private sector, awash in money saved from the excellent profits earned in the 2010 - 2012 years that now sits in low earning savings accounts because there is nothing to invest in. Volumes, revenues and earnings are currently just stagnant. Businesspeople are not stupid and have no desire to throw away money on investments without some increased demand to spur them .

That demand does not exist and there is currently nothing to spur demand. Government investment will spur some improvement to the economy and may , with the assistance of the Obama administration's efforts increase wages and take home pay have some effect on consumer spending and demand.

The problem is businesses are awash in savings from the good years , but are reluctant to invest because there is nothing now or in the near future that will drive consumer spending up. Consumers have been this country's economic engine since WWII and continue to be the driver, but they are sorely underpaid since so many were out of work for long periods of time and have not receive any increased wages leading to increased take home pay. Most workers are still trying to catch up after the long periods of stunted income and businesses are rehiring to maintain sufficient staff as business levels very slowly return to pre-crash levels.

To have a successfully functioning and growing economy there must be some reasonable distribution of business income between owners and workers such that owners receive a worthwhile income to compensate them for their investment and provide funding for future investment while workers receive compensation that will allow them to purchase their basic needs and be able to make those planned or unplanned purchases for higher priced items that are not necessary to the basic needs. It is that spending for the discretionary purchases that drives the economy and produces demand requiring expansion of current businesses and offering new businesses the opportunity to become established.

The problem with tax cuts as a stimulus for investment is that rarely makes more than a minor impression on the economy. It's also the problem with the efforts by Kansas and other states to implement the Laffer model which has no effect on demand although that's the claim of Laffer and the believers in supply side.

To sum up, businesses have an overabundance of cash saved up but they are not investing because demand is too low to produce growth. Demand is too low because wages are too low to provide the spending needed to increase demand. Cutting taxes to increase investment will only increase savings and the separation between the economic classes. The investment needs to be in their employees as a reward for staying with the company during tough times and working without raises as their employers were booking their greatest profits.

The Obama administration's effort to use minimum wage increases and Labor Department changes to overtime earnings are two of the steps the government can take to stimulate wage increases. Also the banks have been recapitalized and are flush with money to lend to businesses but no takers.

The best solution to the current malaise in the economy is to give sizable raises to employees. Cutting taxes gives us --- Kansas. Read more

Joseph E. Stiglitz is right about Trump wining the presidency by riding an enormous wave of support among white working-class voters, some of whom voted for Democrats in the past. Recent polls showed that white voters without a degree make up one-third of the electorate. But Trump himself is part of "an economic system that doesn’t 'deliver' for large parts of the population," and he will not be able to change the "failed economic system" that bedevils so many "angry white" men.The author puts the blame on Reaganomics for "harming the economy as a whole, and especially the bottom 80%" of the population. Under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, "rules of America’s economic system" were written that "serve a few at the top." The GOP president sought to stimulate growth with tax cuts, but as debts rose to record high, he was forced to borrow to cover the budget. In retrospect Reaganomics was deemed a failure by many economists. Nevertheless it has since been part of GOP presidents' policies - to cut taxes as a way of boosting the economy. George W. Bush's legacy of tax cuts - surge in deficits, income inequality, widening wealth gap - saw a contraction of 7.6% in GDP.Trump in his campaign said that sparing more of America’s richest from taxation would be good for everyone - most importantly for him and his family. But if his proposed policy does not bring about the promised Reagan-style boom, it would risk - according to critics - adding $5.3tn to the national debt. While promising the white working class jobs, Trump believed that cutting taxes for the most well off would lead to dynamic growth that would trickle down to the middle class. There is no evidence that this has worked in the past.The author sees an irony in Trump's presidency, because he won the votes of those who reject free trade and globalisation, which have been the pillar of his party's economic polices. Here Trump will fail to deliver - there is no way that he "can bring a significant number of well-paying manufacturing jobs back to the US. He can bring manufacturing back, through advanced manufacturing, but there will be few jobs. And he can bring jobs back, but they will be low-wage jobs, not the high-paying jobs of the 1950’s."Indeed if Trump is really serious about helping the working class, he needs to rewrite the rules yet again, in a way that serves all of society, not just people like him." He should reform the tax system, which he himself had abused in the past. He and his family must stop exploiting their own employees and pay them a living wage so that working people can live "with a modicum of dignity." American families should be able to send their children to higher education without seeing it as a social privilege. "Ensuring greater financial access for small and medium-size enterprises," would strengthen the middle class.If he wants to "make America great again," the author proposes "a carbon tax" which would reduce carbon emission and tackle climate change, which is not a hoax. America can only be great if it thrives economically, while being eco-friendly and preserving a sustainable environment for future generations. The "revenue that could be used to finance infrastructure and direct efforts to narrow America’s economic divide."The tragedy is that Trump has no vision for the future. He just takes a page from Reagan's playbook, without realising that "much has changed" since Reagan's disastrous policies - the "hollowing out the middle class and skewing the benefits of growth" to the rich. Meanwhile "policies and institutions have not kept pace" with the everchanging world - "from the role of women in the workforce to the rise of the Internet to increasing cultural diversity, twenty-first century America is fundamentally different from the America of the 1980s."It is wishful thinking that Trump will really want "to help those who have been left behind," and he will not "go beyond the ideological battles of the past." We have to take him at his word during his campaign, which was insincere at best and mendacious at worst. So there will not be a "dynamic, open, and just society that fulfills the promise of Americans’ most cherished values." It is always better to be pessimistic with someone like Trump. Until he can make people's "American dream" come true, we will not change our opinion on him.﻿ Read more

MM: Yes, HRC for years you could see she wanted in. Many supporters for 8 years claiming she gave up her position so a Black Man could win and now it is "our turn". Cannot see inside of other citizens minds, but feel young Black Americans would see her not as someone to help, but an out of touch wealthy matron. They didn't care what she may have claimed 15 years ago, but see her as part of the privileged society. They feel they know who Trump is: bad but honest. See her as a scam. Supporters of both become angry if you have any common sense question. Yes, I think also he will try hard to get out of the result with some honor. She would have, too, but as a more matter of fact same old stuff thing. From past performances, his picks are not reassuring. However it is his right and obligation, too! More than years ago, I feel both parties are sort of self help societies to stay in office, more than accomplish something. Trump supporters fantasy believers, but really just raging against status quo. We cannot predict what either would achieve. For my part, I do not see in either serious, thoughtful analysis for the future. With all the reins of power, Republicans have no excuses and with all behind him, Trump does not either. Of course, disappointed supporters will blame not themselves or emotionally chosen saviors, but "others", Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, Jews, Liberals, Foreigners. Read more

Be afraid on what you wish... Darwinism is here to get you, no pray can save you from the faith you selected because in the end, you are the weakest, you have no skills to gain in any competition and you have a decent life you are going to lose.

One thing I was afraid, was that if Hillary won, Trump supporters wouldn't have to pay the price for their actions. But guess what...

Guess who is going to pay for the structural reforms (low wages) and austerity policies (higher taxes)...

White middle-age uneducated people, the so called blue collars that have been leeching the rest of society for ages and complaining. Those are the ones who are going to be fired or hired at much lower wages, just take a look into what European governments have been doing to get a glimpse on Republican America.

Let’s make America great.. but guess what blue collar reactionary workers have always been a drag, in America and in any other society.

Trade....it seems to me that what is missing is a subsidiarial approach to Trade negotiations, primarly for the EU but also for the USA (at a State level). If subsidiarity was allowed to influence regional trade then that would address many of the concerns countries and States have regarding globalisation.

For example, because we might get some insignificant region like Wallonia (A state level territory) "objecting" to an EU wide trade deal with Canada, progress for 28 countries in improving trade relations is stalled or stopped. That is where we are with TTIP and (frankly) even an idiot could work out that getting Bloc wide "total" agreement on everything is a non starter. So, rather than opt for the majority voting lever which simply alienates people, but does not deal with real problems at a regional level, allow designated States/Nations to "cherry pick" what part of the agreement they will implement.

This does not have to be quite as nightmarish as it sounds.

You could agree Bloc wide access on the areas that the Bloc is happy about and can agree upon. Those areas where agreement cannot be made, those States are allowed to opt out for a period of years or unless their situation changes significantly that they are able to opt in.

The problem with the "one size fits all" model is that in truth it really doesn't, and sometimes there has to be tweekings to avoid national catastrophes. The Brexit issue exemplified how mass unwanted migration was making life for the British unsustainable for their own people, equally, trade rules can make or break certain economies and so some degree of subsidiarity must be considered to allow trade to progress but to protect those areas that require protecting.

The same is true of the USA - there are some States that really need help and support to fix their manufacturing and investment, and others who are ready to embrace new markets. Going at the slowest pace of the foot draggers is no way to run economies and politicians must start to look at ways of dealing with exceptionalism.

The UK was relatively successful in obtaining opt outs for itself, equally there are probably smaller less influential countries who would also have benefited from opt outs but were denied them.

It is clear therefore, that if we are to bring some harmony to a very angry and disharmonious situation a new enlightened view of trade deals needs to be re-imagined - otherwise we will all suffer. Read more

Mr. Trump has surrounded himself with smart trusted friends: Rudy Giuliani, sons, daughter, glamorous wife ( receipient of hon. Degree from Trump Univ.). campaign manager, former speaker who all insist on family values... What else one needs in times of turbulence? Read more

MM, sorry you do not use your real name so cannot address you, but I was one who said Trump had a darn good chance to win and it was not some sort of outside chance. He did lose the people's vote, of course, did not have their confidence, but won the electoral. Both were poor candidates and I blame that on the parties, who have degenerated into self interest groups. Trump, in business, only thought of himself and by trickery and use of finance source and legal manipulation and you would never do a deal with him because he would make you a loser. His opponent is a poor choice, in a different manner. Because of the degeneracy of the parties, Trump had an easy run, did not need money, but towards the end when a little scared, did take all that outside money. Both parties have done so poorly, all he had to do was attack the status quo, but, as you know, he gave no policy prescriptions. Trump, like Obama, ran for change. The Republicans hemmed in Obama so he could not really change anything. Now Trump does have initiative, through his anti-everything stance he has momentum on the party which controls everything: President, Senate, House and Supreme Court. So now HE controls everything. He can take the glory if he increases your net worth by 25% over the next two years, if not he bears the blame. Of course, as he ran as a Republican, the party has No Excuses. They've got all the marbles and control the game. Let us hope they do not mess it up even more. Read more

Dear Allen, thank you for your comment and for engaging in this debate. Although a bit late now, but both Clinton and Trump were bad choices for the country and the world at large. For one, neither of them should have been allowed to run for the Presidency mainly due to their conflict of interests. The donors to the Clinton Foundation and to other Clinton financial interests are not what one would say “the good heart benefactors” type and sooner or later they would have been expected the get a pay back on their so-called donations. Trump and due to the structure of his business interests cannot be in full time employment and therefore cannot earn a salary, thus his “generous and kind” offer to earn $1, the minimum allowed pay by law. Sanders, was a convenient distraction, and all other contenders in this election were a distraction too. This US election was about the ego of the Titans; The Clintons wanted to make a come-back to the White House, Hillary wanted to be the 1st female US President and of course to seal for good any traces of wrong doing during her tenure as Secretary of State (running a private mail server, etc.). For Trump, this whole election was about promoting his own image and ego, win or lose. The democrats realised two weeks before election day that they were on a slippery slope (and not because of the FBI investigation, which was another convenient excuse, but because of the unpopularity of Hillary) and they brought in whom they thought were the heavy guns, the Obama’s, the Biden’s, etc. and through the media they spread rumours about Hillary’s high ratings in the polls. Trump miscalculated as well, having not anticipated winning. By winning the presidency, his entire wealth and ego are now at stake and under the radar (Clinton would have had the same problem with her Foundation and business interests had she won). Wealth is a double edge sword, if he makes a mistake, he would run the risk of losing everything he worked for his entire life. At 70+ he won’t have another chance of starting from zero. So in a way, he is motivated to work and to work hard at getting things done mainly to preserve his wealth and to pass it on to his future generations. He has a formidable task ahead of him, the expectations are high, the opposition to his candidacy / presidency within his own party (being the establishment) is still very well entrenched, so it shall not be easy, it shall be a bumpy ride but who knows, he might succeed where everyone else failed. Time and only time will tell. Read more

It seems to me that the consensus is that developed Western societies are pass the industrial era. Manufacturing cannot be cost effectively done in these countries and outsourcing is a way to go. This is just as inevitable as the demise of horse drawn carriages not so long ago. Yet myself being from Eastern Europe I cannot wonder on the miracle that Germany achieves. Even after admitting a bunch of Eastern European countries which to the EU, Germany is still the largest exporter of industrial goods in Europe, has an incredibly low rate of unemployment. Accepts skilled workers by the thousands from let say Hungary and has Industry to GDP ratio of 20%+ vs half of that in the US. While of course having high wages, universal healthcare, and affordable higher education.How do they do it?Can the US not emulate their success?https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/manufacturing-processing/how-does-germany-do-itRead more

As always, Joe speaks a great deal of sense. However Joe speaks of Trump as though Trump may be open to logic and reason. Trump is a shallow, indecisive, fatuous buffoon who will only listen to those ideas that he wants to hear. It cannot be assumed that he is open to logical reasonable argument.I think that Trump will be his own worst enemy. Give this man enough rope and he will hang himself. Read more

Ricky my friend, I will leave you to work out the answer to the question that you pose. If you think about if for long enough, and I guess it will take you quite a while, then you might just, might just, be able to answer it.

I would mention in passing that judging from the comments that you make in your earlier post it seems that you are communicating to us from Planet Zircon. Read more

Mr. Stiglitz, do you think that you could meet with Trump & share your views with him? Please try as soon as possible, before he formulates policy. He has not surrounded himself with enlightened people, & it is important that scientific, environmental & economic experts like you speak with him. Read more

Hear hear, Prof. Stiglitz was probably only one of the few mainstream/well-respected economists who were pointing that there is an under current distraught Americans. As much as I use to follow PK, started feeling around 2010 or so that PK and I don;t share the same ethos on political economy. Read more

By signaling that he will NOT veto, the president can embolden the house and senate to pursue destructive legislation -- something that the Republican majorities have been itching to do for the last six years. And he can nominate candidates to the federal court that express his own and other alt-right enthusiasms, leading to the elimination of much of the progress the country has made toward social justice over the past half century. In our time in which the House of Representatives has abrogated most of its constitutional responsibilities, the president can even start wars with relative impunity -- as we have seen more than once in the last few decades.

It's naive and foolish to imagine that the president's power is restricted to a few executive orders. It is whistling past the graveyard. Read more

He's just the President. He can't make laws. He can change previous executive orders and issue new ones. He can threaten and use his veto and he can issue some unpopular pardons near his term end.Most of what you you say needs doing is in the hands of the mostly the same Republican Senators and House members who have been there and enjoyed majorities for the last 6 years and chose not to do any of the things you suggest Trump should do.They won't happen.He is already being shown to have lied about the extent of just about all his policies that he has discussed since his election and we can already see that it was hyperbole at best, outright deception at worst.His best hope for a second term is to call on the Republican House to do what he proposed and then say he did his best when they refuse, but he may not even want or be able to take a second term at age 76.Expect to see more of the policies of the Republican establishment and donor constituency and not much for the disaffected white males of the North East Rust belt. Read more

Trump was elected to liberate the American people from the nightmare world of the cosmopolitan elite. The cosmopolitan elite has been both infinitely greedy and unbearably smug for decades. The people of the UK and now the USA have revolted against their oppressors. The gated-community crowd have trashed the lives of ordinary people without mercy. Now the unprotected are rejecting the unfounded arrogance of the protected. It is called Democracy. For years, the elite has been able to shutdown all debate on trade, immigration, failed multiculturalism, Open Borders, PC by just shouting "racism", "sexism", "bigotry", etc. Of course, PC has always been a tool for elite exploitation of the people. This year, the people stopped listening Read more

The limits of Mr. T fiscal spending and GDP growth will be inflationary pressures, higher interest rates and falling Government revenues as tax cuts are applied across the board. Republicans don’t believe in income redistribution, so benefits of higher income will come from the construction sector. Demand for labor in this sector that it is in short supply, is for mostly young workers and immigrants! The white adult unemployed male, the loser of the trade with China is in the furniture sector, toys and some electronics. There is no turn around for these people. Defense spending could save the day, since it is the sector with higher employment impact of Government spending. The overall issue will be the macro balance trajectory of fiscal spending, Government revenues and debt growth and its finance. Monetary policy will be very busy with inflation. The above scenario may succeed provided cooperation and not trade wars are part of the new agenda. But all of the above won’t solve inequity and those left behind, unless radical social policies are put in place for them. Read more

Really, you have to enjoy the irony when the far right and politicians who claim to be channeling Ronald Reagan promise a worker's paradise. We can already read in the comments here about the pending elimination of the "parasites" and the defeat of the "cosmopolitans." Will it be long before we start hearing about "wreckers," "saboteurs" "running dogs of the main stream media" and other enemies of the people?

If it wasn't so dangerous, one could almost enjoy the spectacle. But perhaps only those us us well past our "best by" date are in a position to enjoy the humor of it. Read more

MM, serving for $1 a year, maybe Kennedy, or not living full time in WH, still needs full maintenance and also costs more for security away from WH. This is just publicity Hog Wash, not real saving vs. what he says he will spend over and above current a prior administrations. Not paying taxes saves far more than presidential income. This is peanuts. Not meaningful. If he needed the money, that would be different. Anyone can forego what they don't need. Read more

For a man who did not stand a chance of winning and won against all odds and fought a campaign not only against a deceitful opponent but also against internal forces and funded the majority of the electoral campaign from his own pockets, one should not be surprised if he does put the $1 to fight corruption and the vested interests. Read more

It seems that the chickens have just elected the fox to guard the chicken coop!!

This is the result when you combine low education standard with 'reality TV' (that is far remote from real reality!) and you do all you can to distract the public with entrainment. We have seen this through Berlusconi and now Trump.

Since a great deal of money was raised by the Clinton Campaign, all contributors to her campaign, including herself, obviously have an excess of disposable income, which would do a great deal of good if such an excess of disposable income is taxed at the highest possible rate, instead of wasting it on funding elections. This money was better spent on reducing the increasing healthcare (Obama lack of Care) costs (as an example) something Mr. O conveniently omitted from his calculations. Read more

I have admired Joe Stiglitz since his departure from the World Bank, and the content of this particular essay is why. But he will need a President Elizabeth Warren if he wants it delivered, certainly not a President Trump. Stiglitz knows that, of course, but he should keep on articulating it until something like a President Warren comes along. Read more

Mr. Stiglitz, I am a 76 year old U.S. natural born white male American living in Arizona on welfare so that I may have health care (Medicare & Medicaid or AHCCCS as it's called here). I just would like to make clear that I do NOT feel left behind. What I feel is that thanks to a phenomonally fast growing capitalist global economy that global wealth is increasing at exponential rates and in the near future, after we work out some immediate problems, everyone will become more properous, more engaged and more fulfilled than ever before in human history. I look at the millions that have been raised up out of poverty throughout the world, most remarkably in Africa and China, and see nothing but good ahead. The most disturbing event I see around me is that a huge majority of the world believe that Trump is the next President, thereby denying Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which descrbes in minute detail that it is only the Electoral College that elects the President, not the popular vote. And resulting from this is a nascent movement to amend this great document to eliminate Article II and the Electoral College. Other than that, my situation is the result of my own self-inflicted disabilities so I have no complaints. Read more

Actually the first thing America's economy needs from Trump is a drumhead court and execution for every banker and financier involved in the 2008 meltdown instead of promotions and bonus's. Then maybe just maybe the general population will believe the system isn't rigged. But since these people literally own the government outright we're for 4 more years of business as usual. Because in this election it didn't matter a damn who got elected nothing was going to change. The only reason Trump won is he proclaimed what most of us knew "The system is rigged". Most people voted for microscopic chance that maybe he would change something. It has become self evident it will be 4 more years of business as usual. Read more

Dante, in the cases of Trump and Clinton, tax returns mean nothing. This tax returns issue is just a propoganda for the simple minded and for the little people to beleive. Any wealth that Trump might have is not and can never be on his tax return, the same applies to Clinton. Trumps wealth is like the balance sheet of a bank, the majority of it is off balance sheet (which is allowed by the system). Clinton who made millions as Secretary of State, whilst the salary of a Secretary of State is in the Thousands and not millions, no one seems to have questioned this? Not forgetting to mention of course her off balance sheet wealth in the form of the Clinton Foundation and the Delaware Trusts. In a corrupt and rigged system, everyone is legallly corrupt, you may interpret this satement the way you wish. Read more

M M replied that trump will save money to the US coffers by accepting only $1 for his presidency. Trump's offer is extremely disingenuous, particularly since he refused to release how much taxes he paid.

Trump is there to do Trump's businesses. He will continue to lie to his constituents because that is how he amassed an alleged fortune. You'll need to be very wet around the hears to believe even for an instant that this humanoid has the interest of the 'forgotten people' and he will lift them from their economic situation. He won't ... but he'll blame everyone for his inability. Read more

Stephan, that's not fair. The man offered today to earn only $1 salary per year, not. To reside fullll time at the White House, etc thereby saving the US tax payers quite a bit of money. Arguably, the same rule should apply to all bankers and public office holders all over the world! Lead by example.. Read more

Trump will probably also fall short on enhancing equality of opportunity. Ensuring preschool education for all and investing more in public schools is essential if the US is to avoid becoming a neo-feudal country where advantages and disadvantages are passed on from one generation to the next. But Trump has been virtually silent on this topic. He has been silent because in North Dakota the education fund that was voted on by the population was put forth this election cycle to drain the fund to zero balance Measure 2 on the ballot and passed. That state has a history of voting a republican since the early 1950's. So there will be no money for pre school education leaving those without a means to be on a equal learning field. There was only 1 polling place for over 20,000 people in the area. It was at the State University! Read more

This article is quite remarkable. Many of the concepts/thoughts in this article are the same policies that lead to the situation we are now in. I have yet to see a coherent explaination of how raising the minimum wage helps underserved communities. Mouthing that we need more preschool ignores tons of research that the benefits of preschooling dissipate quickly and that there are many better ways to spread limited resource in education.

Let's hope we get some innovative market based solutions for some of the challenges we face. 70's based economic "solutions" will not help. Read more

individuals could be allowed to increase their retirement security by putting more money into their Social Security accounts, with commensurate increases in pension benefits"

What a clever way to increase the SS revenue! It might work well if it could be fixed in stone that the bargain would be kept. SS has over the years increase the revenue(tax rate) and then cut the benefit to the higher income tax payers by requiring taxes be paid on "benefit/returns". So I wonder how such "savings/investments" might be protected if used? Social Insurance schemes are wonderful devices but they are surely most dependent on the willingness of future politicians to keep promises... and keeping promises is something not ordinarily associated with politicians. Read more

The first thing is to understand that economic is not right or left idiologies.Both idiologie group has the same problem and that is they are clueless on most basic elements of the economics of today.The using of Adam Smith writings as rule about trade and other issues is just basically trying to put hundreds year old theories in today's society and economics.And yes they are wrong since Ragan, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama was obviously wrong too.The usa debt can only be erased by very high inflation in incomes and if that will increase price so be it.People must understand that all these cheap imported products ultimately has a side effect and that is lower wages and extremely high deficit/debt government and personal and money printing only can temporarily hide the economic deficit How could the usa employ through trade when calculating by gdp numbers per person 50 millions of china's workers and in return china employs a few hundred thousands. Trade is exchanging labor it is so obvious that the labor market supply and demand is totally out of a normal balance because of job deficit.Mr Stiglitz talks about lower paid jobs.But in the natural flow of the economic activity the value of the labor was always set by suply and demand When profit was reinvested efficiently it always demanded polling more workers to the job market and higher wages for the labor and of course inflation.But inflation is the natural economic remedi to eliminate the debt that ultimately created by profit . (Marx ,Ricardo and all of the others were wrong not to see this).I don't want to make this a hundred pages but what any government needs to do is simple.Make sure that policies and regulations (trade agreements ) do not discriminate against people's economic rights they govern.Fist cheap products is not an economic right but only a consumer wish.We can achieve that with slavery again, but any volunteers? The basic economic right of any person that they can sell their economic activity output in an other word their labor for a fair market value that was not influenced by government's policies and regulations.Economic democracy is an absolute must if a country wants to really uphold democracy. Economic democracy can be only if people'seconomic rights is not discriminated.Economist false interpretation of Adam Smith theories about trade from a time when there was no taxation to have schooling ,roads, welfare ,unemployment benefits and so on many social economic benifits paid by taxes is just silly but maybe ignoring to understand the deference between today's and his time of economic functions.So it's not about free trade but understanding it's limits to uphold economic democracy and economic rights of individuals and the responsibility of corporations.The usa and my country canada also ignored economic facts for the last 20 so years.The time is ticking and it's not favors Trump chances to fix the problems. So don't start the blame but understand the real issues.Anyway. .."How one knows that she or he doesn't know something "One more thing about these robots taking away manufacturing jobs...who's making these robots are they from Mars wouldn't they generate manufacturing jobs and if that's true why is most products in Walmart says made in somewhere else and not made by robots in the usa.

Have you actually read the Wealth of Nations? It is a VERY "liberal" piece of writing, with great scorn for the so-called captains of industry. Yes, some parts appear to favor international trading, but he never leaves out the requirement of fair pay for labor. Read more

Wow Jason: I think you are totally wrong but let me say this: The US debt is not a problem in any way shape or form. It can be paid off tomorrow with no negative repurcussion. Also, re: Robots, see this blurb: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plan-addressing-80-us-economic-social-problems-do-fear-flores?trk=prof-postalso:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/incompetence-your-shop-its-economy-smarty-pantsmmt-dummies-flores?trk=prof-post Read more

Joe's good at warping reality to fit his view. "it was the Republican Party he now leads that pushed for extreme globalization". Wow! I didn't know Bill Clinton was a Republican. Reality check. It was bipartisan.Infrastructure spending and carbon tax won't work without balanced trade. It will just lead to a strong dollar and most of the benefits will go to the currency manipulators.Balanced trade will reduce income inequality, not authoritarian measures.The inflation tax makes taxes on investment greater than ordinary income. Another warping of reality to fit your view.Reagan laid the foundation for success up until Clinton and NAFTA and China in the WTO. Another warping of reality to fit your view. Read more

Rick: THis is totally wrong. The solution is a Full Employment Fiscal Policy and a Job Guaranty. See these 2 blurbs:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plan-addressing-80-us-economic-social-problems-do-fear-flores?trk=prof-postandhttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/incompetence-your-shop-its-economy-smarty-pantsmmt-dummies-flores?trk=prof-post Read more

The Dems will never win with this approach. What they need is to articulate a Full Employment Fiscal Policy coupled with a Job Guaranty. Here's a short blurb outlining the solution: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plan-addressing-80-us-economic-social-problems-do-fear-flores?trk=prof-post Read more

Here's another blurb from a busy-body you may be acquainted with outlining the economic principals: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/incompetence-your-shop-its-economy-smarty-pantsmmt-dummies-flores?trk=prof-postRead more

I'll try to minimize the usual snark asking why Democrats did little of this when they had the chance. Moot point now.

Instead, Prof. Stiglitz is absolutely right to consider what would someone in Trump's position do in today's America? Hard to say, right?

If the President-Elect is thinking ahead to the next election, he would throw his supporters a bone. This means reviving or boosting welfare programs, stepping in to prominent failures such as the water situation in Michigan, as a symbolic gesture.

But I recall that direct assistance to individuals is anathema to right-wing economic policy thinkers. So is reversing the decline of collective bargaining. Although Trump could potentially triangulate by giving gifts to favored corporate allies, I think he has a simpler option, more in line with his Reagan-reboot branding.

Supply side stimulus is what we should expect. I suppose that is why everyone is talking about Infrastructure programs. Public transportation would be nice. This country has abysmal public transportation. So would investment in public medicine, though at the moment all we hear is repeal of Obamacare. I won't project my social services dreams onto expectations of Trump's administration.

Regardless of the character of any "investment", it all of course all spells budget deficit. Like Reagan, I expect Trump to speak against deficits and act the other way. In any case, deficits are the least of our potential worries now. Nor were they a concern during the post-GFC bailout period.

What I hope not to see is Trump ignoring the inequality side of the puzzle and instead focusing on scoring points via the anti-immigrant or reactionary anti-social-equality side. I also hope not to see Trump simply avoid economic issues by starting a war, which would boosting his popularity via patriotism and sidestep any domestic issues he has. (A disciplined leader would keep that card reserve, instead of playing it at once). Read more

I'd agree that the ACA is flawed. It might even have been better had the Republicans offered anything constructive during its creation -- or better yet gotten behind single payer.

But never mind that :-) I note that in his call to British PM May, Trump reportedly told her that she "should not take his campaign rhetoric too seriously." If accurate, that might indicate that the angry "up yours" Trump supporters are in for some serious disappointments. What fun! Read more

But I'll say that for the income range from just above the subsidy level, up to lets say mid-middle-class, ACA offers a choice between very high deductibles for the genuinely affordable ACA plans on one hand, vs large increases in rates for traditional non-ACA policies on the other hand. ACA also has a long and complex bipartisan history (that I just looked up... there's a pretty good forbes article on it). As usual, complex and bipartisan is a fancy way of saying it involved big concessions to industry at the expense of consumers - so its flaws make perfect fodder for critics on both sides. Read more

Democrats in Obama's first two years passed the ACA, which for better or for worse was a significant political achievement. Then we all know what happened in 2010.

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans under Trump can accomplish something as significant as the ACA -- particularly for the benefit of less-educated white males. If Trump fails to pull a rabbit out of that hat fairly quickly, things should be interesting in 2018.

I smell opportunity, especially for a new generation of young progressives that dodge the self-pity trap that's driving the right. Read more

Likewise, a public option for housing finance could entitle anyone who has paid taxes regularly to a 20% down-payment mortgage, commensurate with their ability to service the debt, at an interest rate slightly higher than that at which the government can borrow and service its own debt. Payments would be channeled through the income-tax system.Wow! In a liquidity trap, this means everybody would be entitled to an almost infinite loan just by selling their house to a company and then buying it back at an inflated price.Trump may be able to push through a big infrastructure package- something Obama wanted as well- and this could generate well paid jobs for some non graduates. Read more

I certainly agree with the closing sentence here: "... the new rules will make the situation worse, excluding even more people from the American dream. " And if that's correct -- what will the angry and disaffected do then?

On the other hand, for thoughtful young people, I think this is a time of great opportunity. Trump will do to the Republican brand what he has already done to the American brand, and the GOP knows it. That's something powerful to work with!

Curtis: The notion that unempolyment is low or that we are close to full employment is total nonsense. I know, that's what many economists claim (even so called liberal economists with nobel prizes) claim it, if you look at the Employment/Population ratio and compare it to projections from 2001, we are no where near full employment and the proof is in the lack of wage inflation. Offer folks a job, come hell orhigh water, and yoiu'll get your answer. Read more

I'm personally sympathetic to your view Francisco, but note that many economists consider a 5.5% unemployment rate to be "full employment," that the current unemployment rate in the U.S. is 4.9% -- yet the people still elected Donald Trump. That leads me to think that employment is only part of the answer. It forces me to wonder, for example, why so many less-educated white males think -- when we are enjoying full employment at the moment -- that immigrants are "stealing" there jobs?

Perhaps I'm too easily puzzled though. I'm prone to think that the real problem was spotted by H.L. Mencken long ago when he observed that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." And a job guaranty (don't get me wrong, it merits serious study) doesn't seem likely to fix that :-) Read more

Working is fine, but if we can't put everybody to work its just working around the edges. That's why the solution is a Full Employment Fiscal Policy coupled with a Job Guaranty. Put everyone to work at the lower end of the scale producing public sector goods and services. Read more

The benefits of creating employment by giving people the freedom to compete with monopolies in markets far exceeds the benefits of creating employment through government tax and spend while continuing to allow monopolies to block competition in markets. Read more

Mike: Virtually all of our economic problems are the result of people not having enough work. That's why the solution is a Full Employment Fiscal Policy coupled with a Job Guaranty. Put everyone to work at the lower end of the scale producing public sector goods and services. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plan-addressing-80-us-economic-social-problems-do-fear-flores?trk=prof-post Read more

From a non-American outsider‘s point of view like me, the current main-debate in this country seems to be all about the question: „How to make America great again?“For finding an answer, I’d try to figure outa) what did make America so great in the first place?b) can this be achieved again?c) why isn’t America so great anymore?

And my answers would be:a) There was a 2nd Wold War being won by the USA, destroyed competitors, and a massive brain-drain of highly skilled engineers flanked by Operation Overcast / Operation Paperclip. b) I don't think so – a Second Strike will probably not be prevented leaving a lose-lose Situation.c) The competitors are already back since a while, the creations of bubbles for an intermediate funding of a lend-and-buy-economy cannot last forever – the situation of negative trade-balance for many years is citing to a situation in which living beyond the means is ongoing for too many years now. For the ones already in a bad situation, it will become even worse.And with the next step of Globalization what seems to be the decoupling from work-space with living-space by building-up virtual enterprises with virtual project-teams, a lot of today’s good-earning middle-class jobs will be valued on a global scale. Some major adjustments need to be done to bring down the individual costs of living for them, or to decouple the living-costs from the work-income.Implementing socialistic things like an unconditional basic income, maybe financed via Shareholder Socialism – or socialize and give away for free or almost free all things needed for a “normal” living might be needed then.Else, the costs of living for a lot of middle-class knowledge-workers will simply be higher than the globally-adjusted income for their jobs.And I fear, the else case will happen. Read more

We can make America great again by putting everybody to work. That's why the solution is a Full Employment Fiscal Policy coupled with a Job Guaranty. Put everyone to work at the lower end of the scale producing public sector goods and services. Here's a short blurb on the particulars: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plan-addressing-80-us-economic-social-problems-do-fear-flores?trk=prof-post Read more

In a certain way I hope Trump is unsuccessful. Hitler rebuilt the German economy but this just amplified his support in building a platform for something more sinister. Success can be a two edged sword. Read more

Liberals--that is, really America's conservatives--need to relax. They say Trump is a congenital liar. That is almost wrong. Liar implies some calculation like Clinton, and Trump just lets everything flow like a true populist with little relation to what he thinks. Like Reagan, he is a professional actor.

But that means you cannot cherry-pick all his bad statements and say they are the truth. As he told the NY Times In January, a good deal maker starts with an extreme position and then negotiates to the best he can get. We simply don't know where he may end up. Nor does he.

He may be quite receptive to new ideas as compromises. I know foreign policy best of all, and Stiglitz has been my hero. I think Trump is quick close to his foreign policy.

Trump comes out of an isolationist German-American background such as Dutch (Deutsch) Reagan came from an isolationist Irish-American one. Reagan was a man of peace and so, I think, is Trump.

Trump won because the idiotic Democrats called him Drumf and a Hitler and deeply offended the German-American Midwest and Gulf Coast of Florida with their deep anti-German racism. Those like Kagan were especially bad because they know Trump will not be a toady of Netanyahu. That, I think, is a real plus for peace.

On domestic policy, Stiglitz is 73 years old. A lot of his ideas, to be frank, might be right, but are old. Trump's problem is to put together a coalition of the House Republicans and the Sanders Democrats. Sanders Democrats must wrap their ideas in better language and must seek new ideas. The extreme right has some fresh ideas that seem good. Cruz says abolish the Social Security tax and replace it with a VAT. If the numbers are right, that seems good to me. Ryan has a poverty program that Robert Reich says is very good in part. They could be part of a good compromise that carries the House.

And don't take the propaganda of the wealthy suburbs seriously. They don't want to pay a VAT. They want to tax those with over $5 million and pay nothing themselves. Obama told the white working class he would reduce their health costs. Then his health care was for the poor, disproportionately minority. That is what they want abolished. They want entitlements that included them. They want Canada. End Social Security, raise corporate taxes to cover their health and Social Security expenditures, tell the working class that the VAT covers Social Security and their private insurance and you have abolished Obamacare, Medicaid, and the VA and replaced them with something good. Trump is not going to lose the workers by abolishing health care.

The liberals need to stop whining and start paying taxes. When Hank Paulson votes for their party, it is time to change. Read more

The U.S. are one actor among others in the world, and their technological comparative advantage isn't exactly immobile. For the bystander, it was very interesting to get to know the mentality of the democratic party elite. According to Hillary Clinton, the population is divided into at least three groups, the top 1 percent is talked to in private, the intermediate 74 percent is talked to in public with tongue in cheek or at least using "gross generalizations", while the bottom 25 percent is not talked to at all, and segregated into a basket of irredeemable deplorables. So we have at least three "laundry" baskets, with one quarter of the population that seems to be considered "white trash" in the zombie basket. If Stiglitz is right, and the bottom 80 percent of the population is at different speeds more or less at the loosing end of globalization, it seems that the basket of the not to be talked to will progressively have to be upsized, which makes one wonder how elections will be manageable if no restriction on voting rights are erected e.g. removal of voting rights for those without master degree and or without personal fortune. Read more

Exactly. There was no message for thos left behind other then scraps and aid to this or that. That's why the Dems should embrace a Full Employment Fiscal Policy coupled with a Job Guaranty. Put everyone to work at the lower end of the scale producing public sector goods and services. Here's a short blurb on the particulars:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plan-addressing-80-us-economic-social-problems-do-fear-flores?trk=prof-post Read more

This article does not appear to have been written by the author! In any event, the only common theme that Trump has with Reagan is their acting career. Trump is a successful businessman. If he puts his successful business skills to practice, he shall have every chance to succeed. Investing in infrastructure, Trump already said he plans to do it. The key here will Trump stick to his business instinct or change course to become a politician, meaning saying one thing and doing something else. This time will tell. People have voted for change and he better delivers it. With his wealth, standing and ego at stake, he stands to loose big if he does not deliver on at the very least reducing inequality. Regarding the author putting the blame fully on the Republican side, what have the Democrats been doing over 4 terms other than filling up their pockets and making things worst. The democrats had a golden opportunity to change things for the better but decided instead on trying to maintain the Status Quo. They lost. Read more

Incidentally, Chelsea Clinton makes more money than the salary of the President of the USA, H. Clinton made more money than Mr. O. Trump earns more money too. Why are they all fighting for this underpaid job? Read more

Alan, under capitalism, bankruptcies are allowed. Hillary Clinton and of her own admission snack in 2012 aid that she and bill were nearly bankrupt but in the following 3.5 years managed to accumulate nearly a billion.. Read more

What makes you believe that he is a "successful businessman"? Where is the concrete evidence for that. Why, if so, does he refuse to divulge any information about his financial state? There is a widespread belief that he could easily dismiss, that he is, in fact bankrupt. Read more

But the Presidency is not a CEO's job. It's a political job, where the impact of decisions cannot readily be measured in ROI and choices are not just about profit maximisation. Trump has only ever run organisations where he is Sumpreme Emporer.

As for "saying one thing and doing something else", Trump's long track record of bankruptcies - to the point where no bank will lend to him - and unprecedented level of lying (I mean big, enormous fat whoppers) hardly sets him above the politicians you despise. Read more

The premise that Americans are not well off is based on a view of the world that says there is unlimited stuff around the planet for us to keep growing.It doesnt take into account the fact that Americans can live at the standard they do (and have been living for a long time) only due to the robbery of the nations around the world .Robbing resources ,starting wars in order to "convince" those who are not yet convinced that USA is the world's biggest robber,second only to the China of the next decade.And no of course i dont mean the citizens went out and robbed anyone.But accepting to participate in a system that destroys fellow humans is as good as participating to the killing

Greed is the name of the sickness.If americans had any brains they d call for equal redistribution of wealth to evberyone nbot only their own pockets.Since they keep thinking and acting like greedy vultures,they will keep getting poorer.The enemy is within.It s name is bankers."investors" who invest with our money (through loans from their friends in the banking sector).And then we pay whatever is left due to the bank stock holders as profits....Trump is only another face of the same thing.Only way out for our world is to stop capitalism ,to stop accepting these few to rule.We can take over,there is enough smart people around who aren't greedy and dont want to play according to the corrupt rules of the globalisation we have installed.Yes there are alternative ways to live,to have markets to trade.But it demands first and foremost respect .Respect to the human life,to all life as a matter of fact.Unless we want to relive the world war 2 results we have to stop them ASAP.Read more

Calm down George. There's another way. The solution is a Full Employment Fiscal Policy coupled with a Job Guaranty. Put everyone to work at the lower end of the scale producing public sector goods and services. Here's a short blurb on the particulars:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plan-addressing-80-us-economic-social-problems-do-fear-flores?trk=prof-post Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.